July 6th, 2011
Klein writes:
"President Obama's debt-ceiling remarks were interesting for two reasons: what he said, and what he didn't say.
What he said is that we're not doing a short-term deal. "I’ve heard reports that there may be some in Congress who want to do just enough to make sure that America avoids defaulting on our debt in the short term, but then wants to kick the can down the road when it comes to solving the larger problem of our deficit," the president. "I don’t share that view."
If you take the president at his word, that's something of a scary comment. Washington's working definition for "solving the larger problem of our deficit" is $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10-12 years, including substantial taxes and changes to Medicare and Medicaid. There's no way Republicans and Democrats are going to agree on a package like that by late-July. Nor is one needed by late-July. What's needed by late-July is an increase in the debt ceiling. We need, in Austan Goolsbee's piquant terms, to avoid "the first default in history caused purely by insanity."
Indeed. Avoiding a permanent and devastating (not to mention potentially world wide) economic disaster does not qualify as "kicking the can."
Showing posts with label impasse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label impasse. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Shutdown?
March 30th, 2011
A lot of fellow progressives have been telling me they hope for a shutdown. The liklihood increases just about hourly at this point heading towards next week's budget deadline. To be fair, I too have opined of late that we should let it happen. This is not amongst my more prudent recommendations. It is an emotional response to very real frustrations. Although I do remember the Gingrich-led clusterfuck of the mid-nineties generally benefitting the Democratic party, we sure didn't get much in the way of financial reform afterward that would have helped stave off the current crisis. It really only helped secure Clinton's power.
Ezra Klein notes:
"Evidence from the states suggests budget chaos can help the executive even as it harms legislators from both parties, reports Ezra Klein: Political scientists Asger Lau Andersen, David Dreyer Lassen and Lasse Holbøll Westh Nielsen tallied up 167 instances since 1988 alone. But then they went a step further and tried to isolate the fiscal mismanagement they had on the next election. They succeeded. Voters respond to budgetary chaos, and they do so angrily and predictably. The big takeaway is that blame is not shared equally: “Governors are subjected to an electoral penalty only under unified government, while legislatures are always held accountable.”...]W]hen Congress fails to pass a budget on time, voters turn on Congress, not just the minority or majority party. The researchers calculate that a budgetary breakdown under divided government reduces the chances that incumbent legislators from either party will get reelected, though it helps the governor’s party in the gubernatorial elections. That’d suggest that a shutdown would be bad for everyone serving in Congress, but good for Obama."
A lot of fellow progressives have been telling me they hope for a shutdown. The liklihood increases just about hourly at this point heading towards next week's budget deadline. To be fair, I too have opined of late that we should let it happen. This is not amongst my more prudent recommendations. It is an emotional response to very real frustrations. Although I do remember the Gingrich-led clusterfuck of the mid-nineties generally benefitting the Democratic party, we sure didn't get much in the way of financial reform afterward that would have helped stave off the current crisis. It really only helped secure Clinton's power.
Ezra Klein notes:
"Evidence from the states suggests budget chaos can help the executive even as it harms legislators from both parties, reports Ezra Klein: Political scientists Asger Lau Andersen, David Dreyer Lassen and Lasse Holbøll Westh Nielsen tallied up 167 instances since 1988 alone. But then they went a step further and tried to isolate the fiscal mismanagement they had on the next election. They succeeded. Voters respond to budgetary chaos, and they do so angrily and predictably. The big takeaway is that blame is not shared equally: “Governors are subjected to an electoral penalty only under unified government, while legislatures are always held accountable.”...]W]hen Congress fails to pass a budget on time, voters turn on Congress, not just the minority or majority party. The researchers calculate that a budgetary breakdown under divided government reduces the chances that incumbent legislators from either party will get reelected, though it helps the governor’s party in the gubernatorial elections. That’d suggest that a shutdown would be bad for everyone serving in Congress, but good for Obama."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
